Styx were an abomination at best, a wind up toy designed to pop a spring and collapse on itself. I always considered them to be Grand Funk Railroad taken to the next level, which wasn't very far to go, a journey that graduates from a slow lumbering and becomes a club-footed stumble.
Kansas, though, had chops as instrumentalist and were able to deftly handle quick changes and scatterbrained time signatures with ease.
Although derivative of their English cousins through out their career, they could play the busy arrangements with the best of them; guitarist Kerry Livgren had a definite talent for this stuff.
Kansas, though, had awful lyrics, lots of them, but that was mitigated somewhat in the form of vocalist Steve Walsh, a cogent blend of Paul Rodgers and Mark Farner. His bluesy, wailing read of the band's wheat field mysticism was a welcome respite from the Brit habit of being nasal and neutered in their precise pronounciation of utter nonsense.
All told, though, not much of the progressive rock and prog rock inspired music of the era, the Seventies, has aged well into the 21st century. If this had been instrumental music, we might have had discussion of the technical aspects of the music; as is, though this genre's congenital habit of needing lyrics that are unwieldy in cadence and top heavy with the arrogant sophistry only the most isolated first year liberal arts major could manage drag this music to the bottom of the lake. The heaviness these bands sought is rather like a big chain with a profoundly unforgiving anchor .
Monday, September 10, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Freddie Hubbard Oscar Peterson 01 All Blues - YouTube
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CVK_7IVzA_U?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CVK_7IVzA_U?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Freddie Hubbard Oscar Peterson 01 All Blues - YouTube:
I recently read on an online music forum a conversation regarding the use of speed in an improviser's playing and it seems that there is an element of the audience that is loud and absolutist in their opinion that the capacity to play fast is merely cold technique executed by soul-less show off egotist. There might be something to that idea--too many musicians learn to play with it only in mind to take solos like they were Rambo blow torching a sniper's perch--but these guys, virtuosos all, play fast and furious but most of all swing at all times.
They do not sound like they are going berserk; their phrases weave and cascade, and build a new section of their solos with quotes and paraphrase of what has gone before. This is the swinging, uplifting acceleration of musicians who happen to be interested in being musical.One can , and several thousand goosed up guitar goons insist upon pointing out that the expansive likes of a Malmsteen is able to play guitar consistently faster note flurries against stupidly unplayable time time signatures, making those remarks with the implication that Malmsteen's bloviated ersatz fretwork is superior to what Joe Pass could do.
Speed in itself, though, "does" nothing"; it is merely a result of concentration in how one practices their craft, it is a facility that pays dividends for the listener only when there is something of melodic and tonal interest involved in the mix. Indeed, the melody is the motivation for how amazing the soloing will be in a what we think of being the traditional jazz combo, bass, piano, drums, horn, guitar . Rock and roll guitarists of the virtuoso stripe are less musicians in the strictest sense than they are quick wristed imbeciles.
Take away the amplification and the effects and you wind up more often than not with another drop out who hasn't finished his studies on the instrument. And put any of these fellas against the likes of Freddie Hubbard or John Coltrane , with the emphasis being to discover which set of stylists, rock vs jazzbos, achieve the speed only God can hear, my guess, a safe one, is that FB and JC would leave the angry fretsterbators cringing in their cribs, humiliated, crying for their mothers.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Morning Eastwood
Video of Clint Eastwood's RNC speech.:
The saddest headline of the morning is what I just saw on
the front page of Slate.com for a news video;
"WATCH EASTWOOD TALK TO A CHAIR".
Sometimes you imagine an iconic film maker/actor getting out
of their comfort zone and attempting something edgy and avant gard , something
steeped in a High Modernist aesthetic.
Eastwood
might be further around the curve than I might have imagined.
Rather than do a Beckett play, he instead morphed into a one man Beckett
production, a self contained diorama of babbling alienation. This is the imagination of bad results, testimony to life replaying conversations on broken tape machines. What this had to do with what President Obama has done right or wrong is besides the point; what this reveals about politics is non existent. What this has to do with is staring too long at the intersection thinking that there is a face in the easy chair across the room that is listening to your views and inserting their own remarks,
Is this is a man walking backwards into genius?
Monday, August 27, 2012
Norman Mailer’s movies: Revisiting Maidstone, Wild 90, and Beyond the Law - Slate Magazine
Norman Mailer’s movies: Revisiting Maidstone, Wild 90, and Beyond the Law - Slate Magazine:
Norman Mailer's experimental narratives will remain intriguing curiousities , examples of what happens when a brilliant writer attempts to conquer another medium that he has no natural affinity with. Mailer could talk a good game, to be sure, and he demonstrated skill as a film critic--his essay on "Last Tango in Paris" is especially sharp and eloquant on the task of getting to an existential moment within a developing storyline--but his improvisational forays seemed stoned and foolish. "Tough Guys Don;t Dance", not a film I recommend looking for a satisfying murder mystery, does rise above the rest for having a budget and some professional polish. It is awkward, but it does have wierdness to it that Mailer might have developed, ala David Lynch.Lynch, though,has his own problems , with dead camera tonality descending , with continued viewing, from strangeness to mere tedium.
'
Norman Mailer's experimental narratives will remain intriguing curiousities , examples of what happens when a brilliant writer attempts to conquer another medium that he has no natural affinity with. Mailer could talk a good game, to be sure, and he demonstrated skill as a film critic--his essay on "Last Tango in Paris" is especially sharp and eloquant on the task of getting to an existential moment within a developing storyline--but his improvisational forays seemed stoned and foolish. "Tough Guys Don;t Dance", not a film I recommend looking for a satisfying murder mystery, does rise above the rest for having a budget and some professional polish. It is awkward, but it does have wierdness to it that Mailer might have developed, ala David Lynch.Lynch, though,has his own problems , with dead camera tonality descending , with continued viewing, from strangeness to mere tedium.
'
Friday, August 24, 2012
History of prog: The Nice, Emerson Lake & Palmer, and other bands of the 1970s. - Slate Magazine
History of prog: The Nice, Emerson Lake & Palmer, and other bands of the 1970s. - Slate Magazine:
This was a genre that had so much instrumental activity for
so little music that was genuinely pleasurable. The conceit had been that rock
had advanced to the degree that it was indeed an art form, concert music, in
both the instrumental and lyric sense. This yielded some nice and clever albums
and individual tunes that still endure, but in all the mass result was bloat,
pretentiousness, ersatz mysticism or bargain bin despair; it was not fun and it
was work to listen to. What is amazing is how much work many of us did trying
to convince ourselves that most of this material would last beyond our
lifetimes. It hasn't. Slate does a nice series detailing the history of the
rise and fall and the contents of the progressive rock we all used to love .
I
remember the conversations with Steve Esmedina and David Zielinski and George
Varga about this stuff; only Esmo defended progressive rock as a genre, on its
own terms. I always thought the style was hit or miss for the most part, with the
misses, the extended, busy and aimless constructions that occupied the air more
than made it sweeter, becoming the norm, rapidly. There were prog rock bands I
liked, those being most of King Crimson's career in all their line ups, Yes up
to the Fragile album, and smatterings of Jethro Tull, ELP, and so on. What is
missing from the story is anything about the American equivalent of British
progressive rock; not Kansas or other bands directly copying the Euro style,
but rather the likes of Zappa, Captain Beeheart, Steely Dan, Little Feat--the
list could go on, of course--but these personalities and bands had the usual
devices going for them, like tricky time signatures, off the wall lyrics,
impressive instrumental chops, longish and dense arrangements.
The key
distinction, though, was the American tradition of blues, jazz and rhythm and
blues came to merge very heavily into a mixture that included classical music
as a matter of course--what resulted, though, is something altogether different
and, I think, a damn sight weirder and less same-sounding than what the Brits were,
in time, manufacturing like so many widgets. Let us not forget our glory days
of rock/fusion : MILES DAVIS, WEATHER REPORT, TONY WILLIAMS LIFETIME,GARY
BURTON, MAHAVISHNU ORCHESTRA, RETURN TO FOREVER; love it or hate it, jazz
musicians took up rock dynamics and created a sound that was a fleet, dissonant
and complex response to the tinker toy music Europe sent to us. Sure enough,
the American version of progressive rock became another version of
slick commercialism , resembling the dissonance and explosive virtuosity of
the early days and evolving to ever more simple forms, resulting at last in that horrid genre called smooth
jazz.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
'Justice League' #12: DC reveals Super Man's new Woman -- EXCLUSIVE | Shelf Life | EW.com
'Justice League' #12: DC reveals Super Man's new Woman -- EXCLUSIVE | Shelf Life | EW.com
This is a perfect development for the New 52 rebooting of the Superman universe--Lois Lane had been an imperiled paper doll for decades who was busy having her haplass presence rescued by Superman. She was an interesting character, used more as device to impede Superman's ongoing mission to fight for truth, justice and ...Now that she's free of Superman, DC writers can develop her character in ways they couldn't before. And since the new version of Superman emphasises his "otherness", his feeling of feeling apart from the human race he has sworn to protect, it is more realistic and dramatically compelling the he find attraction to some one likewise super-powered and sharing Superman;s alienation. It makes sense as well that he should have a partner who wouldn't be destroyed in the act of love making.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Ayn Rand on Johnny Carson: Watch the full Tonight Show interview. (VIDEO)
Ayn Rand on Johnny Carson: Watch the full Tonight Show interview. (VIDEO):
Ayn Rand is a one trick pony and
an effective marketer of snake oil. The key is that her alleged philosophy has
only one premise that things would be so much better had humanity not strayed
from the Path it was intended to be on. Whether it lies in the cruder readings
of Marx and Engels and the vulgar literalism that overtakes the Religious Right,
these are variations on the Fall from Grace trope. It is a simple paradigm,
simply presented, that presents a powerful and seductive reason for why things
are not perfect. It is a fantastically reductionist movement that, although
Rand protests that no one, not even the State, may initiate force against
another to compel him or her to act against their own judgment, Rand's dogma
isn't workable, even in the most botched and disastrous application, unless the
absolutist policies favorable to her ends find implementation in a manner that
brutishly and none so subtly exclude an opposing view.
The inevitable result of her
views and the views of her followers is to establish an authoritarian regime,
with rights and privileges restricted to those with money, land, industry at
their full disposal. Rand as much argued this in her writings. Now is the time
for all of us to imagine the sheer hell an America governed by Randroids would
be like. Bear in mind that I am talking about Rand's ideas and her followers
and not about the Libertarian Movement in general. Rand has spent a good amount
of her writings arguing who should have power and who should not, and
regardless of the finer points of her grating prose, it comes down to that
those with the business genius, which is to say downright ruthlessness, are the
only ones who have the natural right to shape the world in which they live.
Others are no consequence; it is implicit that others in the culture, the
majority of us, must be subservient to those who build corporate edifices to
their self-defined greatness. This comes across as authoritarian and calling it
something else or claiming that it isn’t so does not change the matter that
life for the rest of us, under Rand regime, would be Hobbesian nightmare, nasty
, brutish and short.
It's fitting. Rand was nasty, brutish and short.
Ayn Rand continues to infuriate the left, because she clearly identified the basic and crucial political issue of our age: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. “
Ayn Rand famously presented herself as an atheist in her desire to be branded an intellectual, and yet the diagnosis she presents as to what the defining and most crucial issue facing America as a country and culture,, "free vs. statism", is a trope she borrowed from the Bible and it's fables of end times, of the war between Heaven and Hell being fought here on earth through the human agents for God and Satan. This Manichean view demonstrates the laziness of her thinking. Not that this habit of borrowing particulars from the narrative template Christian orthodox places upon us is limited to rigidly Hard Right demagogues; erstwhile atheist philosopher Karl Marx foresaw the end of history as process where, after achieving through violent revolution the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the State would wither away and the world and the people within in would be restored to a pre-Capitalist state of naturalness. Among both their sets of codified ideas are a great many notions taken from other sources, and the presentation of their ideas into comprehensible arguments entails rummaging through the same stock of rhetorical devices and sleights of hand. The upshot of all this, of course, is that it feeds beautifully to a population that desires an answer to the over arching question that consists of When Did Things Go Wrong?
It's fitting. Rand was nasty, brutish and short.
Ayn Rand continues to infuriate the left, because she clearly identified the basic and crucial political issue of our age: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. “
Ayn Rand famously presented herself as an atheist in her desire to be branded an intellectual, and yet the diagnosis she presents as to what the defining and most crucial issue facing America as a country and culture,, "free vs. statism", is a trope she borrowed from the Bible and it's fables of end times, of the war between Heaven and Hell being fought here on earth through the human agents for God and Satan. This Manichean view demonstrates the laziness of her thinking. Not that this habit of borrowing particulars from the narrative template Christian orthodox places upon us is limited to rigidly Hard Right demagogues; erstwhile atheist philosopher Karl Marx foresaw the end of history as process where, after achieving through violent revolution the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the State would wither away and the world and the people within in would be restored to a pre-Capitalist state of naturalness. Among both their sets of codified ideas are a great many notions taken from other sources, and the presentation of their ideas into comprehensible arguments entails rummaging through the same stock of rhetorical devices and sleights of hand. The upshot of all this, of course, is that it feeds beautifully to a population that desires an answer to the over arching question that consists of When Did Things Go Wrong?
You can find an answer for ever
No one is arguing against property rights; rather one is arguing against a
belief system that insists to the exclusion of all other evidence that it is
morally wrong for property owners to be held accountable for what they do with
their property, or that there should be enforceable standards and limits on
what can be done with that property lest it seriously and dangerously conflict
with --gasp!--the greater good. When the hack architect Keating in The
Fountainhead breaks his promise to Roark and allows government bureaucrats to
alter the design he (Roark) ghost-designed for him, Roark feels betrayed and
personally violated by the forces he abhors and takes it upon himself, by
reason of him being a self-motivated and self-contained creator, to ignore the
Law and all shared sense of decency and avenge his hurt feelings by destroying
the finished destruction of the public housing project.
The shelter and
elevated standard of living it would have provided the poor and needful was of
no consequence--the solipsistic principles Roark lived by needed to be enforced
over all else. Roark's long and one-note speech at the end of The Fountainhead
is a fairly good outline of the Objectivist point of view, and with it Roark
defends his action. There was a disturbance in the balance of things, much as
it goes in classical tragedy, and only an act of severe violence, unmindful of
what death might occur as a result, could put the balance right again. Roark
here is conspicuously Rand's mouthpiece, a sock puppet peddling her peculiar
brand of inverted morality; the implication is clear, conspicuous, very plain
indeed: should the work of genius creators like Roark be interfered or changed,
the creator reserves the right to become to rise above the petty, slave morality
laws of common society and commit an act of TERRORISM to keep his point clear.
This is not merely a fictional spiel intended to tie up loose plot threads, it
is a serious if deluded argument meant to be taken seriously by the reader.
Roark is very much a fictional creation whose example we are meant to be
inspired by. ...more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Why Bob Seger isn't as highly praised as Springsteen is worth asking, and it comes down to something as shallow as Springsteen being t...
-
The Atlantic a month ago ran a pig-headed bit of snark-slamming prog rock as "The Whitest Music Ever, "a catchy bit of clickbait...